
In this paper we study the existence of solutions of the Dirichlet problem associated to the following nonlinear PDE
−div(a(x)∇u|∇u|p−2)−div(|u|(r−1)λ+1∇u|∇u|λ−2)=f
where 1<λ≤p, r>1 and f∈L1(Ω).
Citation: Lucio Boccardo, Giuseppa Rita Cirmi. Regularizing effect in some Mingione’s double phase problems with very singular data[J]. Mathematics in Engineering, 2023, 5(3): 1-15. doi: 10.3934/mine.2023069
[1] | Giovanni Scilla, Bianca Stroffolini . Partial regularity for steady double phase fluids. Mathematics in Engineering, 2023, 5(5): 1-47. doi: 10.3934/mine.2023088 |
[2] | Giovanni Cupini, Paolo Marcellini, Elvira Mascolo . Local boundedness of weak solutions to elliptic equations with p,q−growth. Mathematics in Engineering, 2023, 5(3): 1-28. doi: 10.3934/mine.2023065 |
[3] | Edgard A. Pimentel, Miguel Walker . Potential estimates for fully nonlinear elliptic equations with bounded ingredients. Mathematics in Engineering, 2023, 5(3): 1-16. doi: 10.3934/mine.2023063 |
[4] | Youchan Kim, Seungjin Ryu, Pilsoo Shin . Approximation of elliptic and parabolic equations with Dirichlet boundary conditions. Mathematics in Engineering, 2023, 5(4): 1-43. doi: 10.3934/mine.2023079 |
[5] | Gennaro Ciampa, Gianluca Crippa, Stefano Spirito . Propagation of logarithmic regularity and inviscid limit for the 2D Euler equations. Mathematics in Engineering, 2024, 6(4): 494-509. doi: 10.3934/mine.2024020 |
[6] | Masashi Misawa, Kenta Nakamura, Yoshihiko Yamaura . A volume constraint problem for the nonlocal doubly nonlinear parabolic equation. Mathematics in Engineering, 2023, 5(6): 1-26. doi: 10.3934/mine.2023098 |
[7] | Antonio Vitolo . Singular elliptic equations with directional diffusion. Mathematics in Engineering, 2021, 3(3): 1-16. doi: 10.3934/mine.2021027 |
[8] | Quoc-Hung Nguyen, Nguyen Cong Phuc . Universal potential estimates for 1<p≤2−1n. Mathematics in Engineering, 2023, 5(3): 1-24. doi: 10.3934/mine.2023057 |
[9] | Aleksandr Dzhugan, Fausto Ferrari . Domain variation solutions for degenerate two phase free boundary problems. Mathematics in Engineering, 2021, 3(6): 1-29. doi: 10.3934/mine.2021043 |
[10] | Yannick Sire, Susanna Terracini, Stefano Vita . Liouville type theorems and regularity of solutions to degenerate or singular problems part II: odd solutions. Mathematics in Engineering, 2021, 3(1): 1-50. doi: 10.3934/mine.2021005 |
In this paper we study the existence of solutions of the Dirichlet problem associated to the following nonlinear PDE
−div(a(x)∇u|∇u|p−2)−div(|u|(r−1)λ+1∇u|∇u|λ−2)=f
where 1<λ≤p, r>1 and f∈L1(Ω).
The topic of this paper is inspired by one of the recent scientific interests of Rosario Mingione, the so–called "double phase" elliptic problem.
The main example of a double phase integral functional is
J(v)=∫Ω[1p|∇v|p+ρ(x)q|∇v|q],with 1<p<q, |
where Ω is an open, bounded subset of RN (N≥2),
1<p<q,with qp close to 1 in dependence on N. | (1.1) |
and
ρ(x)≥0. | (1.2) |
Since it is not assumed that the weight ρ(x) is bounded away from zero (that is, it is not assumed that ∃ρ0∈R+ such that ρ(x)≥ρ0>0), it is not possible to say, even under the assumption p<q, that the term ρ(x)|∇v|q is dominant, so that the set {x:ρ(x)=0} plays an important role.
Few years ago, R. Mingione found a name for such a problem: double phase problems. Since then, these problems and this terminology have become very popular.
Note that, the functional J exhibits unbalanced growth: the (p,q)-growth in the Marcellini terminology (see [16]).
Nowadays, there is a huge literature concerning double phase elliptic problems. Here we only recall the fundamental papers [2,3,12,13], and recently [14,17].
The main example of a double phase elliptic nonlinear differential operator is the derivative of J, that is
A(v)=−div(∇v|∇v|p−2)−div(ρ(x)∇v|∇v|q−2), |
In this paper we study the existence of distributional solutions, belonging to some standard Sobolev spaces, of Dirichlet problems with very singular data, and associated to differential operators of double phase type like
−div(a(x)∇v|∇v|p−2)−div(g(v)∇v|∇v|λ−2), |
with g(0)=0.
Namely, we deal with the existence of solutions of the following boundary value problem
{−div(a(x)∇u|∇u|p−2)−div(g(u)∇u|∇u|λ−2)=f,inΩ;u=0,on∂Ω; | (1.3) |
where Ω is an open, bounded subset of RN (N≥2),
1<λ≤p<N, | (1.4) |
a(x) is a measurable function such that
α≤a(x)≤β,withα,β>0, | (1.5) |
g(t)=|t|(r−1)λ+1, withr>1, | (1.6) |
f∈L1(Ω). | (1.7) |
We point out that
● in (1.4) the parameters λ,p play the role of p,q in (1.1)
● the operator presented in (1.3) also depends on a power of u;
● the coefficient a(x) does not need to be smooth.
Our existence results hinge on the presence of the additional term
−div(g(u)∇u|∇u|λ−2), |
which strongly helps, even if it has a growth (with respect to the gradient) λ≤p and despite of the degeneracy due to the factor |u|(r−1)λ+1.
As a matter of fact, this term provides a strong regularizing property: roughly speaking, we prove that the solution u of (1.3), under a suitable relationship between the parameters p and λ, is more regular (and it even exists) than the solution y of
{−div(a(x)∇y|∇y|p−2)=f,in Ω;y=0,on∂Ω, | (1.8) |
The regularizing effect of some lower orders terms, in the framework of boundary value problems with L1-data, is already known since the paper [10] by H. Brezis and W. A. Strauss. We also refer to the paper [1,6,9,11], where some Dirichlet problems with lower order terms of order zero or of order one, with natural growth with respect to ∇u are studied.
This section deals with the case
f∈L∞(Ω). |
In the sequel, given k>0, we denote by Gk(s) and Tk(s) the classical truncated functions defined by
Gk(s)=(|s|−k)+sgns,Tk(s)=s−Gk(s),s∈R. |
Let us introduce the following sequence of boundary value problems
{−div(a(x)∇un|∇un|p−2)−div(g(Tn(un))∇un|∇un|λ−21+1n|∇un|λ−1)=f(x),inΩ;un=0,on∂Ω. |
As a consequence of the classical result due to J. Leray, J. L. Lions (see [15]) there exists un∈W1,p0(Ω) which is a weak solution of the above problem in the sense that the following integral identity holds
∫Ωa(x)∇un|∇un|p−2∇v+∫Ωg(Tn(un))∇un|∇un|λ−21+1n|∇un|λ−1∇v | (2.1) |
=∫Ωfv,for anyv∈W1,p0(Ω). |
Moreover, due to the boundedness of f and adapting the well known method used in [18], each un is a bounded function and there exists a positive contant Cf, independent on n, such that
‖un‖L∞(Ω)≤Cf,∀n∈N. |
Thus, for any n>Cf it holds Tn(un)=un and un is a weak solution of the following Dirichlet problem
{un∈W1,p0(Ω):−div(a(x)∇un|∇un|p−2)−div(g(un)∇un|∇un|λ−21+1n|∇un|λ−1)=f(x), | (2.2) |
that is
∫Ωa(x)∇un|∇un|p−2∇v+∫Ωg(un)∇un|∇un|λ−21+1n|∇un|λ−1∇v | (2.3) |
=∫Ωfv,for anyv∈W1,p0(Ω). |
Taking un as test function in (2.3) and using the assumption (1.5) we have
α∫Ω|∇un|p+∫Ωg(un)|∇un|λ1+1n|∇un|λ−1≤∫Ωfun. |
Dropping the second (positive) term in the left–hand side and using the boundedness of f we obtain
‖un‖W1,p0(Ω)≤C1,∀n∈N. | (2.4) |
Here, and in the sequel, we denote by Ci positive constants only depending on the data (but not on n).
Thus, there exist a subsequence, not relabelled, and a function u∈W1,p0(Ω)∩L∞(Ω) such that
un⇀uweakly in W1,p0(Ω), | (2.5) |
un→ustrongly inLp(Ω), and a.e. in Ω. | (2.6) |
Moreover, using estimate (2.4) we obtain, since 1<λ≤p,
∫Ω1n|∇un|λ−1≤C2n,∀n∈N. |
Thus,
1n|∇un|λ−1→0strongly inL1(Ω), and a.e. in Ω. | (2.7) |
In order to have
un→ustrongly in W1,p0(Ω), | (2.8) |
it is enough to prove that
∫Ωa(x)[∇un|∇un|p−2−∇u|∇u|p−2]∇(un−u)→0. | (2.9) |
Let us take v=un−u as test function in (2.3)
∫Ωa(x)[∇un|∇un|p−2−∇u|∇u|p−2]∇(un−u) |
+∫Ωg(un)∇un|∇un|λ−2−∇u|∇u|λ−21+1n|∇un|λ−1∇(un−u) |
=∫Ωf(un−u)−∫Ωa(x)∇u|∇u|p−2∇(un−u) |
−∫Ωg(un)∇u|∇u|λ−21+1n|∇un|λ−1∇(un−u) |
Due to the positivity of the second term we get
∫Ωa(x)[∇un|∇un|p−2−∇u|∇u|p−2]∇(un−u) | (2.10) |
≤∫Ωf(un−u)−∫Ωa(x)∇u|∇u|p−2∇(un−u) |
−∫Ωg(un)∇u|∇u|λ−21+1n|∇un|λ−1∇(un−u). |
We note that the first and the second integral in the right–hand side converge to 0. Moreover,
g(un)∇u|∇u|λ−21+1n|∇un|λ−1→g(u)∇u|∇u|λ−2a.e. in Ω |
and (since |∇u|λ−1∈Lp′)
|g(un)∇u|∇u|λ−21+1n|∇un|λ−1|≤g(Cf)|∇u|λ−1,∀n∈N. |
Thus, by the Lebesgue Theorem we get
g(un)∇u|∇u|λ−21+1n|∇un|λ−1→g(u))∇u|∇u|λ−2strongly in Lp′(Ω), | (2.11) |
which in turn implies
∫Ωg(un)∇u|∇u|λ−21+1n|∇un|λ−1∇(un−u)→0. |
Then, (2.9) easily follows taking the limit as n→+∞ in (2.10) and the strong convergence (2.8) is proved. Finally, we take the limit as n→+∞ in (2.3) (using (2.9) and (2.11)) and we obtain the following existence theorem.
Theorem 2.1. Let 1<λ≤p<N. Assume that (1.5), (1.6) hold and let
f∈L∞(Ω). |
Then there exists a weak solution u∈W1,p0(Ω)∩L∞(Ω) which solves the problem (1.3) in the following weak sense
∫Ωa(x)∇u|∇u|p−2∇v+∫Ωg(u)∇u|∇u|λ−2∇v=∫Ωfv | (2.12) |
for any v∈W1,p0(Ω).
In this section we assume that
f∈L1logL1(Ω) | (3.1) |
and we will prove the existence of a distributional solution of problem (1.3)
Let {fn} be a sequence of bounded functions such that
fn→fstrongly inL1(Ω), |
and
‖fn‖L1(Ω)≤‖f‖L1(Ω),∀n∈N. |
Classical examples are fn=Tn[f] and fn=f1+1n|f|.
Let us introduce the following approximate boundary value problems
{−div(a(x)∇un|∇un|p−2)−div(g(un)∇un|∇un|λ−2)=fn(x),in Ω;un=0,on∂Ω. | (3.2) |
By Theorem 2.1, there exists un∈W1,p0(Ω)∩L∞(Ω) such that, for any v∈W1,p0(Ω),
∫Ωa(x)∇un|∇un|p−2∇v+∫Ωg(un)∇un|∇un|λ−2∇v=∫Ωfnv. | (3.3) |
Let k>0; by taking Tk(un) as test function in the weak formulation (3.3) of problem (3.2) and dropping the positive second term, we can proceed as in [4] and the following lemma holds.
Lemma 3.1. Let 1<λ≤p<N. Assume that the hypotheses (1.5), (1.6), (3.1) are satisfied. Then, for any k>0 it holds
∫Ω|∇Tk(un)|p≤k∫Ω|f|,∀n∈N. | (3.4) |
Moreover, there exists C0>0 such that
∫Ω|∇un|s≤C0,s<(p−1)NN−1, | (3.5) |
and
{a(x)∇un|∇un|p−2}isboundedinLt(Ω),1<t<NN−1. | (3.6) |
Next, we will prove the following lemma.
Lemma 3.2. Let 1<λ≤p<N. Assume that the hypotheses (1.5), (1.6), (3.1) are satisfied. Then there exists a positive constant R, independent on n, such that
∫Ω|∇un|λ≤R,∀n∈N. | (3.7) |
Proof. We set η=(r−1)λ+1 (note that η>1 since r>1) and we take
v=[1−1(1+|un)η−1]un|un| |
as test function in (3.3). Dropping the positive term resulting by the principal part, we obtain
(η−1)∫Ω|un|η(1+|un|)η|∇un|λ≤∫Ω|fn(x)|[1−(1+|un|)1−η]≤∫Ω|f(x)|. |
We fix k>0. By the above estimate we have
(η−1)kη(1+k)η∫{|un|>k}|∇un|λ≤‖f‖L1(Ω). | (3.8) |
Thus, putting together estimates (3.4) and (3.8), it follows (3.7).
Further improvements on the boundedness of un and ∇un, depending on the relationship between the parameters p,λ and r, can be derived from the following lemma
Lemma 3.3. Let 1<λ≤p<N. Assume that the hypotheses (1.5), (1.6), (3.1) are satisfied. Then there exist two positive constants R1,R2 independent of n such that
∫Ω|un|rλ∗≤R1,∀n∈N | (3.9) |
and
∫Ω|∇un|σ≤R2,∀n∈N | (3.10) |
with
σ=rpλ∗1+rλ∗. |
Proof. By taking v=log(1+|un|)un|un| as test function in the weak formulation (3.3) of problem (3.2) (see [8]), it is easy to see that
α∫Ω|∇un|p1+|un|+∫Ω|un|(r−1)λ+11+|un||∇un|λ≤∫Ω|f|log(1+|un|). |
Using in the right–hand side the inequality
st≤slog(1+s)+et,∀s,t>0 |
and the boundedness of {un} in L1(Ω) and, taking into account the positivity of each of the two integrals in the left-hand side and (3.7), the following two estimates hold
∫Ω|un|(r−1)λ+11+|un||∇un|λ≤C3,∀n∈N | (3.11) |
and
∫Ω|∇un|p1+|un|≤C4,∀n∈N | (3.12) |
From estimate (3.11) we also deduce
12∫|un|>1|un|(r−1)λ|∇un|λ≤C5,∀n∈N |
which, together with inequality (3.4), implies
∫Ω|un|(r−1)λ|∇un|λ≤C6,∀n∈N. | (3.13) |
Now, we can use Sobolev inequality
1(rS)λ(∫Ω|un|rλ∗)λλ∗≤1rλ∫Ω|∇|un|r|λ= |
∫Ω|un|(r−1)λ|∇un|λ≤C7,∀n∈N |
and the estimate (3.9) follows.
Next, let us prove (3.10). We follow the outline of [8]. Note that since σ<p, by Hölder inequality with exponents pσ,pp−σ and inequality (3.12), we have
∫Ω|∇un|σ=∫Ω|∇un|σ(1+|un|)σp(1+|un|)σp≤C8[∫Ω(1+|un|)σp−σ]p−σp |
and the proof is concluded, since, by the choice of σ, it follows σp−σ=rλ∗.
Remark 3.4. Note that in Lemmas 3.1 and 3.7 we only use the assumption f∈L1(Ω), while Lemma 3.3 requires the additional hypothesis f∈L1logL1(Ω). However, if f is merely summable, the proof of Lemma 3.3 can be repeated in order to obtain the boundedness of {∇un} in W1,σ0(Ω), for any 1≤σ<rpλ∗1+rλ∗.
Remark 3.5. We point out that
max{λ,σ}={λifλ≥Npr−1Nr−1σifλ<Npr−1Nr−1. |
Moreover
Npr−1Nr−1>1⟺p>1+N−1r. |
Thus, Lemma 3.3 improves Lemma 3.7 if 1≤λ<Npr−1Nr−1 and p>1+N−1r. (Note that 1+N−1r∈]1,2−1N[ since r>1).
Remark 3.6. Let 2−1N<p<N. Taking into account only the contribution of the principal part and applying the results of [7] we deduce that the sequence {un} is bounded in W1,N(p−1)N−10(Ω).
Thus the term
−div(g(un)∇un|∇un|λ−2) |
has a regularizing effect in the following two cases
i) 2−1N<p<N and (p−1)NN−1<λ≤p,
ii) 1<p≤2−1N and 1<λ≤p.
As a consequence of previous lemmas we prove the following two existence results.
Theorem 3.7. Let 1<λ≤p<N. Assume that hypotheses (1.5), (1.6) and (3.1) hold.
Then there exists u∈W1,λ0(Ω), such that g(u)|∇u|λ−1∈L1(Ω), which solves the problem (1.3) in the following distributional sense
∫Ωa(x)∇u|∇u|p−2∇v+∫Ωg(u)∇u|∇u|λ−2∇v=∫Ωfv, | (3.14) |
for any v∈C∞0(Ω).
Theorem 3.8. Let 1<λ≤p<N. Assume that hypotheses (1.5), (1.6) and (3.1) hold.
Then there exists u∈W1,σ0(Ω), such that g(u)|∇u|λ−1∈L1(Ω), which solves the problem (1.3) in the distributional sense (3.14).
Remark 3.9. We explicitly remark that, in the case λ=p, Theorem 3.7 gives the existence of at least one solution with finite energy without any additional assumption on the summability of f. A similar regularizing effect occurs for the solution of the Dirichlet problem associated to the equation
−div(a(x)∇u|∇u|p−2)+u|u|s−1=f, |
where f∈Lm(Ω) with 1<m<(p∗)′, when a suitable balance between m and s holds, (see [11]) or to the equation
−div(a(x)∇u|∇u|p−2)+u|u|s|∇u|p=f |
with f∈L1(Ω) (see [9]).
The following Figure 1 summarizes the different regularity results in dependence of p and λ.
If (p,λ) belongs to the region A, the better regularity is the one obtained in [7], i.e., u∈W1,N(p−1)N−10(Ω); otherwise the better regularity is the one proved here.
If (p,λ) belongs to the region B, Theorem 3.8 gives the existence of a distributional solution u∈W1,σ0(Ω); while in the region C the better regularity is the one stated in Theorem 3.7, i.e., u∈W1,λ0(Ω).
At last, if (p,λ) belongs to the colored region the result stated in Theorem 3.7 is new.
We begin with the proof of Theorem 3.7.
As a consequence of Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 3.7 there exist a subsequence, not relabelled, and a function u∈W1,λ0(Ω) such that
{un⇀uweakly in W1,λ0(Ω),un→ustrongly inLλ(Ω) and a.e. in Ω,Tk(un)⇀Tk(u)weakly in W1,p0(Ω). | (3.15) |
In order to take the limit as n→+∞ in (3.2) we have to prove that
∇un→∇ua.e. in Ω. |
We follow some techniques of [5]. For any ξ∈RN, we set
A(x,ξ)=a(x)ξ|ξ|p−2,Bn(ξ)=ξ|ξ|λ−21+1n|ξ|λ−1. |
Let j,k>0; using v=Tj[un−Tk(u)] as test function in (3.3) we have
∫Ω[A(x,∇un)−A(x,∇Tk(u))]∇Tj[un−Tk(u)]+∫ΩA(x,∇Tk(u))∇Tj[un−Tk(u)]+∫Ωg(un)[Bn(∇un)−Bn(∇Tk(u))]∇Tj[un−Tk(u)]+∫Ωg(un)Bn(∇Tk(u))∇Tj[un−Tk(u)]=∫ΩfTj[un−Tk(u)]. | (3.16) |
We note that
∫Ωg(un)[Bn(∇un)−Bn(∇Tk(u))]∇Tj[un−Tk(u)]≥0. |
Moreover (since A(x,∇Tk(u))∇Tj[u−Tk(u)]=0)
limn→∞∫ΩA(x,∇Tk(u))∇Tj[un−Tk(u)]=0 |
and
limn→∞∫Ωg(un)Bn(∇Tk(u))∇Tj[un−Tk(u)]=limn→∞∫{|un−Tk(u)|<j}g(un)Bn(∇Tk(u))∇[un−Tk(u)]=0 |
since Bn(0)=0. Thus, from (3.16) we deduce
0≤∫Ω[A(x,∇un)−A(x,∇Tk(u))]∇Tj[un−Tk(u)]≤ϵ1n(k)+ϵ2n(k)+ωn(k), | (3.17) |
where we have denoted by ϵ1n(k) and ϵ2n(k) two functions which go to 0 as n→+∞, for any k>0 and
ωn(k)=∫ΩfTj[un−Tk(u)]. |
Now, we use the above inequality in order to prove the L1 compactness of the sequence {∇un}.
Let 0<θ<λp (0<θ<1) and k>0. Let us define
In,Ω=∫Ω{[A(x,∇un)−A(x,∇u)]∇(un−u)}θ. |
and let us prove that the previous integral converges to zero.
Indeed, it holds
In,Ω=In,Ck+In,Ak |
where
In,Ck=∫Ck{[A(x,∇un)−A(x,∇u)]∇(un−u)}θ |
and
In,Ak=∫Ak{[A(x,∇un)−A(x,∇u)]∇(un−u)}θ |
with
Ck={x:|u(x)|≤k},Ak={x:|u(x)|>k}. |
We observe that
In,Ck≤∫Ω{[A(x,∇un)−A(x,∇Tk(u))]∇(un−Tk(u))}θ=Jn,Ω. |
Using the Hölder inequality, with exponents λpθ and λλ−pθ, and the a priori estimate (3.10), we have
In,Ω≤Jn,Ω+In,Ak≤Jn,Ω+C11[∫Ak(|∇un|+|∇u|)λ]pθλ|Ak|1−pθλ≤Jn,Ω+C12|Ak|1−pθλ=Jn,Ω+ω1(k). | (3.18) |
Here and in the sequel, for any measurable set E⊂RN, |E| denotes its N− dimensional measure. Moreover, by ωi(k) we denote some quantities such that limk→∞ωi(k)=0. Now, we have to study the behavior of Jn,Ω; it can be splitted as (j∈N)
Jn,Ω=∫Ω{[A(x,∇un)−A(x,∇Tk(u))]∇Tj[un−Tk(u)]}θ |
+∫{|un−Tk(u)|>j}{[A(x,∇un)−A(x,∇Tk(u))]∇[un−Tk(u)]}θ=J1n,Ω+J2n,Ω. |
We estimate J1n,Ω and J2n,Ω by means of Hölder inequality with exponents 1θ, 11−θ and λpθ, λλ−pθ, respectively and we use inequalities (3.17) and (3.7), getting
Jn,Ω=[∫Ω[A(x,∇un)−A(x,∇Tk(u))]∇Tj[un−Tk(u)]]θ |Ω|1−θ |
+CR|{x:|un−Tk(u)|>j}|1−pθλ. |
≤C13[ϵ1n(k)+ϵ2n(k)+ωn(k)]θ+CR|{x:|un−Tk(u)|>j}|1−pθλ. |
Since
ωn(k)→∫ΩfTj[u−Tk(u)]=ω2(k) |
and
lim supn→∞|{|un−Tk(u)|>j}|1−pθλ≤ |{|u−Tk(u)|≥j}|1−pθλ=ω3(k), |
we obtain
lim supn→∞Jn,Ω≤C14[ω2(k)]θ+C15ω3(k). |
Summing up the above inequality and (3.18) we have
lim supn→∞[In,Ck+In,Ak]≤ω1(k)+C16[ω2(k)]θ+C17ω3(k). |
Therefore,
∫Ω{[A(x,∇un)−A(x,∇u)]∇(un−u)}θ→0, |
which gives (for a suitable subsequence, still denoted by un)
{[A(x,∇un)−A(x,∇u)]∇(un−u)}θ→0a.e., |
and also (since θ is positive)
{[A(x,∇un)−A(x,∇u)]∇(un−u)}→0a.e.. |
In [15], it is proved that, under our assumptions on the function A(x,ξ), the previous limit implies that
∇un(x)→∇u(x)a.e.. | (3.19) |
Thus
a(x)∇un(x)|∇un(x)|p−2→a(x)∇u(x)|∇u(x)|p−2, a.e. | (3.20) |
and, thanks to (3.6) we have
a(x)∇un(x)|∇un(x)|p−2→a(x)∇u(x)|∇u(x)|p−2, in Lτ(Ω),1<τ<t<NN−1. | (3.21) |
Next, we will prove that
g(un)∇un|∇un|λ−2→g(u)∇u|∇u|λ−2 in L1(Ω). | (3.22) |
Thanks to (3.19) we also deduce
g(un)∇un|∇un|λ−2→g(u)∇u|∇u|λ−2a.e. in Ω. |
Moreover, for any measurable set E⊂Ω we have
∫Eg(un)|∇un|λ−1=∫E|un|r(|un|r−1|∇un|)λ−1≤C20[∫E|un|λr]1λ[∫E|un|(r−1)λ|∇un|λ]1−1λ≤C21[∫Ω|un|λ∗r]1λ∗|E|1λ−1λ∗[∫Ω|un|(r−1)λ|∇un|λ]1−1λ | (3.23) |
and the right–hand side goes to 0 as |E|→0 uniformly w.r.t. n, since estimates (3.9) and (3.13) hold. Thus
lim|E|→0∫Eg(un)|∇un|λ−1=0, uniformly w.r.t. n. |
Thanks to Vitali Theorem the convergence (3.22) is proved and
∫Ωg(un)∇un|∇un|λ−2∇v→∫Ωg(u)∇u|∇u|λ−2∇v,∀v∈C∞0(Ω). |
The above limit and the limit (3.21), allow us to take the limit as n→+∞ in (3.3) and the proof of Theorem 3.7 follows.
In order to prove Theorem 3.8 we note that as a consequence of Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 3.3. there exist a subsequence, not relabelled, and a function u∈W1,σ0(Ω) such that
{un⇀uweakly in W1,σ0(Ω)un→ustrongly inLσ(Ω) and a.e. in Ω,Tk(un)⇀Tk(u)weakly in W1,p0(Ω). | (3.24) |
and the proof can be performed as above. Precisely, in order to obtain the a.e. convergence of {∇un} we just have to replace λ with σ.
This work has been supported by Project EEEP & DLaD – Piano della Ricerca di Ateneo 2020-2022–PIACERI.
G. R. Cirmi is member of the Gruppo Nazionale per l'Analisi Matematica, la Probabilità e le loro Applicazioni (GNAMPA) of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM).
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
[1] |
D. Arcoya, L. Boccardo, Regularizing effect of the interplay between coefficients in some elliptic equations, J. Funct. Anal., 268 (2015), 1153–1166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfa.2014.11.011 doi: 10.1016/j.jfa.2014.11.011
![]() |
[2] |
P. Baroni, M. Colombo, G. Mingione, Harnack inequalities for double phase functionals, Nonlinear Anal., 121 (2015), 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2014.11.001 doi: 10.1016/j.na.2014.11.001
![]() |
[3] |
P. Baroni, M. Colombo, G. Mingione, Regularity for general functionals with double phase, Calc. Var., 57 (2018), 62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00526-018-1332-z doi: 10.1007/s00526-018-1332-z
![]() |
[4] | P. Bénilan, L. Boccardo, T. Gallouët, R. Gariepy, M. Pierre, J. L. Vazquez, An L1 theory of existence and uniqueness of solutions of nonlinear elliptic equations, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sci., 22 (1995), 241–273. |
[5] | L. Boccardo, Some nonlinear Dirichlet problems in L1 involving lower order terms in divergence form, In: Progress in elliptic and parabolic partial differential equations, Harlow: Longman, 1996, 43–57. |
[6] |
L. Boccardo, G. R. Cirmi, Some elliptic equations with W1,10 solutions, Nonlinear Anal., 153 (2017), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2016.09.007 doi: 10.1016/j.na.2016.09.007
![]() |
[7] |
L. Boccardo, T. Gallouët, Nonlinear elliptic and parabolic equations involving measure data, J. Funct. Anal., 87 (1989), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1236(89)90005-0 doi: 10.1016/0022-1236(89)90005-0
![]() |
[8] |
L. Boccardo, T. Gallouët, Nonlinear elliptic equations with right hand side measures, Commun. Part. Diff. Eq., 17 (1992), 189–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/03605309208820857 doi: 10.1080/03605309208820857
![]() |
[9] |
L. Boccardo, T. Gallouët, Strongly nonlinear elliptic equations having natural growth terms and L1− data, Nonlinear Anal., 19 (1992), 573–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/0362-546X(92)90022-7 doi: 10.1016/0362-546X(92)90022-7
![]() |
[10] |
H. Brézis, W. A. Strauss, Semi-linear second-order elliptic equations in L1, J. Math. Soc. Japan, 25 (1973), 565–590. https://doi.org/10.2969/jmsj/02540565 doi: 10.2969/jmsj/02540565
![]() |
[11] |
G. R. Cirmi, Regularity of the solutions to nonlinear elliptic equations with a lower-order term, Nonlinear Anal., 25 (1995), 569–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/0362-546X(94)00173-F doi: 10.1016/0362-546X(94)00173-F
![]() |
[12] |
M. Colombo, G. Mingione, Bounded minimisers of double phase variational integrals, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 218 (2015), 219–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00205-015-0859-9 doi: 10.1007/s00205-015-0859-9
![]() |
[13] |
M. Colombo, G. Mingione, Regularity for double phase variational problems, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 215 (2015), 443–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00205-014-0785-2 doi: 10.1007/s00205-014-0785-2
![]() |
[14] | C. De Filippis, G. Mingione, Nonuniformly elliptic Schauder theory, arXiv: 2201.07369. |
[15] |
J. Leray, J. L. Lions, Quelques résultats de Višik sur les problèmes elliptiques semi-linéaires par les méthodes de Minty et Browder, Bull. Soc. Math. France, 93 (1965), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.24033/bsmf.1617 doi: 10.24033/bsmf.1617
![]() |
[16] |
P. Marcellini, Regularity and existence of solutions of elliptic equations with p,q-growth conditions, J. Differ. Equations, 90 (1991), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0396(91)90158-6 doi: 10.1016/0022-0396(91)90158-6
![]() |
[17] |
P. Marcellini, Local Lipschitz continuity for p,q-PDEs with explicit u-dependence, Nonlinear Anal., 226 (2023), 113066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2022.113066 doi: 10.1016/j.na.2022.113066
![]() |
[18] |
G. Stampacchia, Le problème de Dirichlet pour les équations elliptiques du second ordre à coefficients discontinus, Ann. Inst. Fourier, 15 (1965), 189–257. https://doi.org/10.5802/aif.204 doi: 10.5802/aif.204
![]() |
1. | Fessel Achhoud, G. Rita Cirmi, Regularity results for an anisotropic nonlinear Dirichlet problem, 2024, 1747-6933, 1, 10.1080/17476933.2024.2336975 |